GTX 960 4Gb vs R9 290

[Dude]

What makes you say this?

 

I would get a 290X before getting a 970.

Because the GTX 960 isn't for higher display resolutions and unless you made the world's most complex PhysX simulation then you couldn't use up 3GB of VRAM or so.

Seriously though, the 960 is too slow for higher resolutions. The 970 isn't. The 290X is an overclocked 290 and plus, the 290X consumes power out of the ass and burns people's homes down.

[Whorax]

Because the GTX 960 isn't for higher display resolutions and unless you made the world's most complex PhysX simulation then you couldn't use up 3GB of VRAM or so.

Seriously though, the 960 is too slow for higher resolutions. The 970 isn't. The 290X is an overclocked 290 and plus, the 290X consumes power out of the ass and burns people's homes down.

Then maybe you shouldn't have gotten the 290 you did. Mine doesn't heat my room like you seem to think they all do, power consumption wasn't a problem for me, and I can't hear my 290X any more than my 970s when I had them. And from what I've seen people say on here, the 290X keeps up with the 970 at higher resolutions and even outperforms it in some instances.

 

God forbid we recommend a product that's perfectly good for it's price and age as opposed to a product that isn't clearly, and is partially falsely advertised. I'm actually happier with my 290X than I was with SLI 970s. I play on 1080p and you literally can't tell a difference because both cards max nearly every, if not all games out with flying colors on such a low resolution.

 

I was just asking you why you insisted the OP get a 970 as opposed to a 290/X, since you didn't give a reason before. So I'll do the same as you: OP, coming from SLI 970s, I would recommend you get a 290/X. The MSI Lightning one preferably if you can stretch the budget, as it's a bad ass card. If not, any 290 should really do the trick. One thing's for certain--I wouldn't go for a 960.

[ChrisCross]

I own an Asus R9 290 DirectCu II OC and bought it for about $339.99 CAD minus $30 mail-in rebate from NCIX. It was a steal at the time but that's not to say I was lucky. I waited a couple months before buying anything just to see fluctuation in prices.

 

Anyways, performance wise... it kills every game I throw at it. I'm getting 60 fps at ultra setting every time. If I was video card hunting again, I'd get the R9 290.

 

Only downside was the wattage. If you don't have a PSU that's 650+ ... then maybe just get the 960.

 

well my 290 dcII is having trouble on 2560*1080. also its pulling round about 250-300w. combined with an intel cpu you'd need at least 550w (but it rather be 80+)

[xAcid9]

1. The console?

 

2. Yes only cheap GPUs needs OC to reach 60fps unless you play in 4K or so?

 

3. Link? =)

1. Yes. If PhysX is in DirectX, how pCars in PS4 can use it.

 

2. That mean anything from 980 and below is a cheap GPU because it can't reach 60fps at 1080p in Dragon Age:Inquisition max out.

 

3.

 

More at www.google.com

 

Because the GTX 960 isn't for higher display resolutions and unless you made the world's most complex PhysX simulation then you couldn't use up 3GB of VRAM or so.

Seriously though, the 960 is too slow for higher resolutions. The 970 isn't. The 290X is an overclocked 290 and plus, the 290X consumes power out of the ass and burns people's homes down.

290x is not an overclocked 290. Get your fact right.

[FamedShot]

well my 290 dcII is having trouble on 2560*1080. also its pulling round about 250-300w. combined with an intel cpu you'd need at least 550w (but it rather be 80+)

 

What you mean having trouble? I'm not getting issues that I've noticed. I did have artifacting when I tried to overclock it but once I left it at default it was all good.

[Bouzoo]

2. Yes only cheap GPUs needs OC to reach 60fps unless you play in 4K or so?

Do you even know what you're talking about? Please don't spread misinformation

[Nena Trinity]

1. Yes. If PhysX is in DirectX, how pCars in PS4 can use it.

 

2. That mean anything from 980 and below is a cheap GPU because it can't reach 60fps at 1080p in Dragon Age:Inquisition max out.

 

3.

 

More at www.google.com

 

290x is not an overclocked 290. Get your fact right.

Yes even consoles has DirectX

[Bouzoo]

Yes even consoles has DirectX

PS4 doesn't, it uses OpenGL

[Nena Trinity]

PS4 doesn't, it uses OpenGL

And it still has PhysX?

 

Also how come it get 60fps on Call of Duty?

[Bouzoo]

 

And it still has PhysX? 

 

Also how come it get 60fps on Call of Duty? 

Yes it does. PhysX doesn't belong to Microsoft (DX12), it's Nvidias technology so it's up to them. Nvidia decided they would give the support (sign license agreement) to Sony with SDK.

As for COD, I suppose you mean Advanced Warfare. The game is not that hard to max on your pc so consoles shouldn't have a problem.

System requirements

[Nena Trinity]

 

 

Yes it does. PhysX doesn't belong to Microsoft (DX12), it's Nvidias technology so it's up to them. Nvidia decided they would give the support (sign license agreement) to Sony with SDK.

As for COD, I suppose you mean Advanced Warfare. The game is not that hard to max on your pc so consoles shouldn't have a problem.

System requirements

 

But the console is made by AMD...

[Bouzoo]

But the console is made by AMD...

No, the console is made by Sony while using a few of AMD components, and they has found a way to implement it since they got the green light from Nvidia.

 

Get it? Green light from Nvidia? No...? 

[Nena Trinity]

No, the console is made by Sony while using a few of AMD components, and they has found a way to implement it since they got the green light from Nvidia.

 

Get it? Green light from Nvidia? No...? 

lol how funny

[ChrisCross]

What you mean having trouble? I'm not getting issues that I've noticed. I did have artifacting when I tried to overclock it but once I left it at default it was all good.

i dont mean artifacting or anything like that. im just dipping under 60fps on the highest settings at that resolution

[othertomperson]

Then maybe you shouldn't have gotten the 290 you did. Mine doesn't heat my room like you seem to think they all do, power consumption wasn't a problem for me, and I can't hear my 290X any more than my 970s when I had them. And from what I've seen people say on here, the 290X keeps up with the 970 at higher resolutions and even outperforms it in some instances.

 

God forbid we recommend a product that's perfectly good for it's price and age as opposed to a product that isn't clearly, and is partially falsely advertised. I'm actually happier with my 290X than I was with SLI 970s. I play on 1080p and you literally can't tell a difference because both cards max nearly every, if not all games out with flying colors on such a low resolution.

 

I was just asking you why you insisted the OP get a 970 as opposed to a 290/X, since you didn't give a reason before. So I'll do the same as you: OP, coming from SLI 970s, I would recommend you get a 290/X. The MSI Lightning one preferably if you can stretch the budget, as it's a bad ass card. If not, any 290 should really do the trick. One thing's for certain--I wouldn't go for a 960.

 

Why would you swap out your two cards for an older card that's almost as good as either one of them? That doesn't make any sense. If you didn't need the performance of 970 SLI (which you don't at 1080p) then why not just sell one of them?

 

A single 290X and two 970s are about equivalent in heat output, which is probably why you aren't noticing a difference in your room temperature.

[Whorax]

Why would you swap out your two cards for an older card that's almost as good as either one of them? That doesn't make any sense. If you didn't need the performance of 970 SLI (which you don't at 1080p) then why not just sell one of them?

 

A single 290X and two 970s are about equivalent in heat output, which is probably why you aren't noticing a difference in your room temperature.

You're arguing about something as asinine as room temperature? Seriously? My room is comfortable at ~70 degrees Fahrenheit. Leave it at that because it's all that matters.

 

I got a full refund on my 970s because I didn't appreciate how Nvidia wasn't fully clear or honest on how the VRAM worked at first, and they still aren't because the cards are being sold all over as 4GB cards with no catch. Don't start an argument about how it doesn't affect performance--I know it doesn't it most cases because they're 1080p cards and just that--I just don't approve of the way the cards were dishonestly advertised and sold.

 

I also got my 290X for free in a series of fortunate events. And it's not "almost as good" as a 970, it's as good.

[othertomperson]

You're arguing about something as asinine as room temperature? Seriously? My room is comfortable at ~70 degrees Fahrenheit. Leave it at that because it's all that matters.

 

I got a full refund on my 970s because I didn't appreciate how Nvidia wasn't fully clear or honest on how the VRAM worked at first, and they still aren't because the cards are being sold all over as 4GB cards with no catch. Don't start an argument about how it doesn't affect performance--I know it doesn't it most cases because they're 1080p cards and just that--I just don't approve of the way the cards were dishonestly advertised and sold.

 

I also got my 290X for free in a series of fortunate events. And it's not "almost as good" as a 970, it's as good.

 

Room temperature was one of the points I made, and it was a retort to something that you had said.

 

I hate to break it to you but 0.5+3.5=4. You literally were not lied to, that's very much how numbers work. You weren't falsely advertised anything. You swapped out the equivalent of a single Titan X in terms of gaming performance for something that performs about half as well and I'm asking you why, because that makes no sense.

 

It's not even true that they're 1080p cards: I have never found the "issue" of having about 13% of the memory run at a different speed to the rest of it to cause any problems at 4K, so if they pass that metric then I find your qualms at 1080p to be a bit silly.

[Whorax]

Room temperature was one of the points I made, and it was a retort to something that you had said.

 

I hate to break it to you but 0.5+3.5=4. You literally were not lied to, that's very much how numbers work. You weren't falsely advertised anything. You swapped out the equivalent of a single Titan X in terms of gaming performance for something that performs about half as well and I'm asking you why, because that makes no sense.

 

It's not even true that they're 1080p cards: I have never found the "issue" of having about 13% of the memory run at a different speed to the rest of it to cause any problems at 4K, so if they pass that metric then I find your qualms at 1080p to be a bit silly.

You're getting bent out of shape because of what? I don't agree with you? Come on buddy, get over it.

 

Tell yourself they were honest to people, it doesn't change the fact that they were dishonest about the card. "I hate to break it to you".

 

I find your qualms with my entire opinion to be a bit silly. I won't discuss it any further because, having tried to reason with people arguing the same as you before, it doesn't seem to sink in and nobody can seem to be rational about it and understand the situation from the buyer's--someone that has spent their earned money on something's--point of view.

 

Also, any jackoff knows what .5 + 3.5 is. That's not the issue. Thank you for a well thought out attempt at insulting my intelligence though.

 

Have a good one.

[othertomperson]

You're getting bent out of shape because of what? I don't agree with you? Come on buddy, get over it.

 

Tell yourself they were honest to people, it doesn't change the fact that they were dishonest about the card. "I hate to break it to you".

 

I find your qualms with my entire opinion to be a bit silly. I won't discuss it any further because, having tried to reason with people arguing the same as you before, it doesn't seem to sink in and nobody can seem to be rational about it and understand the situation from the buyer's--someone that has spent their earned money on something's--point of view.

 

Also, any jackoff knows what .5 +3.5 is. That's not the issue. Thank you for a well thought out attempt at insulting my intelligence.

 

Have a good one.

 

I'm not being "bent out of shape". You said something that makes zero sense whatsoever, so I'm asking you to explain what your logic was. So far your reaction to any kind of scrutiny has been to ad hominem the emotional state of anyone who asks. Nice one.

 

The fact is you swapped out one thing for something that, when the sun is shining and the birds are singing and the wind is in your favour, can only ever be half as good as what you had.

 

And I really don't get it. You're cutting your nose off to spite your face here, all because of what? AMD's PR department made some jokes a couple of months ago?

 

I'm not surprised people have brought this up before me tbh. It's a very valid point. Your reasoning is completely non sequitur.

[typographie]

1. All GPUs has it because of DirectX

 

PhysX is a proprietary Nvidia technology. You can install the software regardless of your hardware (and some games require it to be installed to work correctly). But if you're gaming with an AMD card and you have PhysX enabled, then it's running in a slow CPU emulation mode, and not benefiting from GPU acceleration.

 

So technically you're right, you can use PhysX with any card. But if you want the game to be playable, it needs to be a Nvidia card.

[Whorax]

I'm not being "bent out of shape". You said something that makes zero sense whatsoever, so I'm asking you to explain what your logic was. So far your reaction to any kind of scrutiny has been to ad hominem the emotional state of anyone who asks. Nice one.

 

The fact is you swapped out one thing for something that, when the sun is shining and the birds are singing and the wind is in your favour, can only ever be half as good as what you had.

 

And I really don't get it. You're cutting your nose off to spite your face here, all because of what? AMD's PR department made some jokes a couple of months ago?

I swapped GPUs because I got a free one and returned mine for a full refund... did you not read that when I previously said it? I don't see what I said that makes zero sense, but okay. Whatever you say buddy.

 

Also, "the fact is you swapped out one thing for something that...can only ever be half as good as what you had" is completely untrue. It would appear to me that you don't know the basics on how SLI/CF works.

 

Now, there's no point in responding unless you want to seem more childish or you want to make yourself feel better by getting the last word in. We're both spamming up OP's thread with completely off topic stuff, so drop it because both of us are being unhelpful to anyone at this point.

[othertomperson]

I swapped GPUs because I got a free one and returned mine for a full refund... did you not read that when I previously said it? I don't see what I said that makes zero sense, but okay. Whatever you say buddy.

 

Also, "the fact is you swapped out one thing for something that...can only ever be half as good as what you had" is completely untrue. It would appear to me that you don't know the basics on how SLI/CF works.

 

Now, there's no point in responding unless you want to seem more childish or you want to make yourself feel better by getting the last word in. We're both spamming up OP's thread with completely off topic stuff, so drop it because both of us are being unhelpful to anyone at this point.

 

No, I've asked you a perfectly reasonable question, which you've dodged for three posts in a row now. If you don't want to answer it or cannot answer it, then that's fine but don't try and make out that I am responsible for this.

[Nena Trinity]

PhysX is a proprietary Nvidia technology. You can install the software regardless of your hardware (and some games require it to be installed to work correctly). But if you're gaming with an AMD card and you have PhysX enabled, then it's running in a slow CPU emulation mode, and not benefiting from GPU acceleration.

 

So technically you're right, you can use PhysX with any card. But if you want the game to be playable, it needs to be a Nvidia card.

So every benchmark I see people have PhysX on then they are cheating to make Nvidia look good?

[KingDuder]

I have another option that came to my mind.  I could buy another gpu and Sli my current setup.  I currently have a gtx 660 FTW with 3gb of vram.  The overclock and vram amount would be good for higher settings and higher textures.  This is my card https://www.evga.com/Products/Specs/GPU.aspx?pn=997734BC-E6CF-47F2-BDFB-9977A13B17F2 and I could buy another for $200, ($100 cheaper then an r9 290).  I do have some questions and concerns,

 

1. How much watts would be recommended for a gtx 660 sli setup?

 

2. While using sli, will I expect to see any issues such as micro stuttering?

 

3. What games do not have sli support?  Should I expect sli support on AAA games, or not?

 

4.  Is sli a reasonable choice other than a gtx 960 or r9 290?

[-rascal-]

You are better off to get a single R9-290. It won't come close to the GTX 970.

GTX 660 (non Ti) in SLi will trail a single R9-290. It may just nip the GTX 780, though...but at the cost of extra heat and power.

Two GTX 660's will pull more power than a single R9-290.

 

Viable options that I would recommend:

1. Used / inexpensive GTX 780 (Ti)
2. R9-290(X)
3. Save up a bit more, and get a GTX 970